The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review: Aiming For the Top
by Ryan Smith on July 2, 2015 11:15 AM ESTGrand Theft Auto V
The final game in our review of the R9 Fury X is our most recent addition, Grand Theft Auto V. The latest edition of Rockstar’s venerable series of open world action games, Grand Theft Auto V was originally released to the last-gen consoles back in 2013. However thanks to a rather significant facelift for the current-gen consoles and PCs, along with the ability to greatly turn up rendering distances and add other features like MSAA and more realistic shadows, the end result is a game that is still among the most stressful of our benchmarks when all of its features are turned up. Furthermore, in a move rather uncharacteristic of most open world action games, Grand Theft Auto also includes a very comprehensive benchmark mode, giving us a great chance to look into the performance of an open world action game.
On a quick note about settings, as Grand Theft Auto V doesn't have pre-defined settings tiers, I want to quickly note what settings we're using. For "Very High" quality we have all of the primary graphics settings turned up to their highest setting, with the exception of grass, which is at its own very high setting. Meanwhile 4x MSAA is enabled for direct views and reflections. This setting also involves turning on some of the advanced redering features - the game's long shadows, high resolution shadows, and high definition flight streaming - but it not increasing the view distance any further.
Otherwise for "High" quality we take the same basic settings but turn off all MSAA, which significantly reduces the GPU rendering and VRAM requirements.
Our final game sees the R9 Fury X go out on either an average or slightly worse than average note, depending on the settings and resolution we are looking at. At our highest 4K settings the R9 Fury X trails the GTX 980 Ti once again, this time by 10%. Worse, at 1440p it’s now 15%. On the other hand if we run at our lower, more playable 4K settings, then the gap is only 5%, roughly in line with the overall average 4K performance gap between the GTX 980 Ti and R9 Fury X.
In this case it’s probably to AMD’s benefit that our highest 4K settings aren’t actually playable on a single GPU card, as the necessary drop in quality gets them closer to NVIDIA’s performance. On the other hand this does reiterate the fact that right now many games will force a tradeoff between resolution and quality if you wish to pursue 4K gaming.
Finally, the performance gains relative to the R9 290X are pretty good. 29% at 1440p, and 44% at the lower quality playable 4K resolution setting.
Shifting gears to 99th percentile frametimes however – a much-welcome feature of the game’s built-in benchmark – finds that AMD doesn’t fare nearly as well. At the 99th percentile the R9 Fury X trails the GTX 980 Ti at all times, and significantly so. The deficit is anywhere between 26% at 1440p to 40% at 4K Very High.
What’s happening here is a combination of multiple factors. First and foremost, next to Shadow of Mordor, GTAV is our other VRAM busting game. This, I believe, is why 99th percentile performance dives so hard at 4K Very High for the R9 Fury X, as it only has 4GB of VRAM compared to 6GB on the GTX 980 Ti. But considering where the GTX 980 places – above the R9 Fury X – I also believe there’s more than just VRAM bottlenecking occurring here. The GTX 980 sees at least marginally better framerates with the same size VRAM pool (and a lot less of almost everything else), which leads me to believe that AMD’s drivers may be holding them back here. Certainly the R9 290X comparison lends some possible credit to that, as the 99th percentile gains are under 20%. Regardless, one wouldn’t expect to be VRAM limited at 1440p or 4K without MSAA, especially as this test was not originally designed to bust 4GB cards.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
458 Comments
View All Comments
TallestJon96 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
This card and the 980 ti meet two interesting milestones in my mind. First, this is the first time 1080p isn't even considered. Pretty cool to be at the point where 1080p is considered at bit of a low resolution for high end cards.Second, it's the point where we have single cards can play games at 4k, with higher graphical settings, and have better performance than a ps4. So at this point, if a ps4 is playable, than 4k gaming is playable.
It's great to see higher and higher resolutions.
XtAzY - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Geez these benchies are making my 580 looking ancient.MacGyver85 - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Idle power does not start things off especially well for the R9 Fury X, though it’s not too poor either. The 82W at the wall is a distinct increase over NVIDIA’s latest cards, and even the R9 290X. On the other hand the R9 Fury X has to run a CLLC rather than simple fans. Further complicating factors is the fact that the card idles at 300MHz for the core, but the memory doesn’t idle at all. HBM is meant to have rather low power consumption under load versus GDDR5, but one wonders just how that compares at idle.I'd like to see you guys post power consumption numbers with power to the pump cut at idle, to answer the questions you pose. I'm pretty sure the card is competitive without the pump running (but still with the fan to have an equal comparison). If not it will give us more of an insight in what improvements AMD can give to HBM in the future with regards to power consumption. But I'd be very suprised if they haven't dealt with that during the design phase. After all, power consumption is THE defining limit for graphics performance.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
Idle power consumption isn't the defining limit. The article already said that the cooler keeps the temperature low while also keeping noise levels in check. The result of keeping the temperature low is that AMD can more aggressively tune for performance per watt.Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
This is a gaming card, not a card for casuals who spend most of their time with the GPU idling.Oxford Guy - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
The other point which wasn't really made in the article is that the idle noise is higher but consider how many GPUs exhaust their heat into the case. That means higher case fan noise which could cancel out the idle noise difference. This card's radiator can be set to exhaust directly out of the case.mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 5, 2015 - link
It's an engineering card as much as it is for gaming. It's a great solid modeling card with OpenCL. The way AMD is building its driver foundation will pay off big in the next quarter.Nagorak - Monday, July 6, 2015 - link
I don't know that I agree about that. Even people who game a lot probably use their computer for other things and it sucks to be using more watts while idle. That being said, the increase is not a whole lot.Oxford Guy - Thursday, July 9, 2015 - link
Gaming is a luxury activity. People who are really concerned about power usage would, at the very least, stick with a low-wattage GPU like a 750 Ti or something and turn down the quality settings. Or, if you really want to be green, don't do 3D gaming at all.MacGyver85 - Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - link
That's not really true. I don't mind my gfx card pulling a lot of power while I'm gaming. But I want it to sip power when it's doing nothing. And since any card spends most of its time idling, idling is actually very important (if not most important) in overal (yearly) power consumption.Btw I never said that idle power consumption is the defining limit, I said power consumption is the defining limit. It's a give that any Watt you save while idling is generally a Watt of extra headroom when running at full power. The lower the baseline load the more room for actual, functional (graphics) power consumption. And as it turns out I was right in my assumption that the actual graphics card minus the cooler pump idle power consumption is competitive with nVidia's.